But states have continued to increase funding for K-12 education, prisons, and health care in line with changing demographics and rising costs. They have elected not to increase funding for public higher education in line with changing demographics and demand for seats in public universities. That tells you all you need to know about where their priorities lie.
Your complaints about rising costs in this context are completely misplaced. Yes, costs in the higher education sector have increased; that is true in both public and private institutions. But even if there had been zero increase in real cost, state legislatures would still be short-changing public higher education by providing less taxpayer subsidy per FTE student than in the past.
That’s not true in K-12 education. In most states there were annual increases in state aid to K-12 education in proportion to the growth in K-12 enrollment as the “echo boomers” (aka “millennials”) entered and progressed through pre-K, kindergarten, grade school, middle school, and high school. In many cases there were real increases in per-student aid to K-12 education over this period, despite rising enrollments, but at a minimum most states managed to keep up both with inflation and with enrollment growth. And now that K-12 enrollment has stabilized or even begun to shrink in some places as the demographic bulge of the echo boomers progresses beyond their K-12 years, many states have continued to increase state aid to K-12 education despite stable or falling enrollments. But when those echo boomers got to college, the states for the most part said, “No more; we wash out hands of this. Public universities, you’ll need to cope with rising enrollments from this demographic bulge, and from the fact that more of our young people than ever before are electing to go to college because our economy no longer provides many jobs with middle-class wages for those without college educations, by spreading the same amount of money (adjusted for inflation) over a much larger student population.” I call that a cut, you refuse to call it a cut, but whatever you call it, it puts public universities in a real bind. Most have no choice but to raise tuition, though many are trying to diversify their financing in other ways as well. And in about half the states, it’s even worse than that, because public colleges and universities have borne real (inflation-adjusted) cuts in total appropriations to public higher education, not just cuts in per-FTE appropriations–so in effect the legislatures in those states are saying, “We’ll give you less money (not even the same money) to educate more students; now go do your job.”
Purple – It would be nice to see some data to back up your assertions.
College enrollments increased by 50% in the past 25 years. I think that’s probably double the rate of U.S. population growth over that time period.
I’m puzzled at why you all are making so many assertions denying the obvious.
State U’s are much bigger and much more expensive than they were 25 years ago. Or even five years ago. So why is it a surprise that their hugely increased financial needs are funded in a different way than in the past? When enrollment was much lower and costs were also much much lower.
Take a look at any university budget and it is clear what is going on.
2010 budget for Ohio State was $4.45B with $577M of state support. 2015 budget is $5.4B with state support of $484M.
Sure the state money was down some. But the budget was up more. A lot more. Like (cut to Dr. Evil) ONE BILLION dollars more! In only five years fyi. During which five years there was a recession and essentially zero inflation.
That budget does not suggest that TOSU is in “continued decline.” TOSU is just a lot bigger, a lot more expensive and funded in a different way. Same goes for most public U’s (whether flagship or not).
Perhaps we should look at and talk about the denominator (i.e. budget) a bit?
216 The President of UVa for many years before Teresa Sullivan was John Casteen. He was President when one of my sons was there. If that is who Squiddy is referring to, that is interesting. Casteen did initiate AccessUVa in 2004 in an effort to increase economic diversity, but I would be surprised to find him "openly hostile to middle and upper class kids", telling them that they were "uniquely privileged (leavened with a certain amount of contempt in his voice" ) to attend an institute of higher education on the backs of people who had no chance of attending" and that his "notion was the college should be used to educate poor students and the middle class could go to private schools elsewhere." Somehow I doubt a President of any public university would be President for long if he or she implied that a public university should not be open potentially to all citizens, regardless of income. Casteen was proud of UVa and did address the privilege it was to attend in his address to incoming students (from what I recall) but I have not been aware of these other things that Squiddy has mentioned, which is why I had asked for clarification.
“But states have continued to increase funding for K-12 education, prisons, and health care in line with changing demographics and rising costs. They have elected not to increase funding for public higher education in line with changing demographics and demand for seats in public universities. That tells you all you need to know about where their priorities lie.”
I’d say it has little to do with prioroities. More likely the reason that the states didn’t keep increasing aid to State U’s is because the Feds were sending increased dollars for them.
If the State U’s were really being starved for money, how could TOSU increase its annual budget by $1 billion in just five years?
“2010 budget for Ohio State was $4.45B with $577M of state support. 2015 budget is $5.4B with state support of $484M.”
So how much should Ohio be sending TOSU if they had the right priorities?
They were at 13% of 2010 budget with $577M of support.
To keep at that percentage, they’d need to be doing $700M now. And in five years, they need to be doing $850M. Even though inflation is zero. If you think 25% of budget is the “right” priority, then they’d need to send TOSU $1.35B – that’s triple what they do now. Or maybe 35% is “right” – that’s $1.9B – quadruple what they do now.
Also, how come no one discusses that federal dollars have been increasing? The govt dollars going to State U’s used to do be 65/35 state/Fed. Now its about 50/50.
Why are State U’s “declining” if the funding just rotates from state to Fed?
“Zero inflation”? Not according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics which says cumulative inflation from 2000 to 2015 has been 9.12%. Yes, inflation has been low, less than 2% per year, but all those slightly-below-2% year-over-year increases are cumulative. That accounts for nearly half the growth in Ohio State’s budget, which if your figures are correct is 21.3% in nominal dollars over this period.
Over that same time period, OSU’s student body grew by 6.0%, from 55,014 to 58,332. Its faculty grew by 14.6%, which should result in lower student-faculty ratios and smaller classes over time, making it more competitive with the schools it’s trying to compete with. Some of the growth in both students and faculty is attributable to growth in demand for places in OSU’s excellent engineering school; in 2009-10, 7% of the undergraduate degrees awarded by OSU were in engineering. By 2014-15 that figure was up to 12.8% of a larger graduating class–roughly doubling the number of engineering grads the school turns out, from about 650 per year in 2009-10 to 1300 per year in 2014-15. Expansion of the engineering school is in direct response to increased student demand and meets the tangible needs of state residents who are able to get into, and graduate from, OSU’s engineering school, but it also serves the tangible needs of Ohio’s economy which is still heavily manufacturing-oriented and needs lots of well-trained engineers to function and remain economically competitive.
You write as if a $950 million increase in Ohio State’s budget is obviously waste and bloat. I don’t see it that way. Nearly half the increase was just to keep up with inflation. The university is educating more Ohio residents, and by growing the faculty faster than it’s growing the student body it’s actually positioning itself to provide a higher quality education And its educational product is evolving; you can’t just reassign English and history professors to teach engineering, you need to expand your engineering faculty if you’re going to train more engineers. Maybe there is some waste and bloat in there somewhere, but you need to show me where, because so far I don’t see it.
And meanwhile, according to your figures, the state legislature slashed appropriations to Ohio State by 16.1% in nominal dollars, or roughly 25% in inflation-adjusted dollars over the same period. Why? Because OSU is educating more Ohioans? Because OSU is trying to offer a better educational product (admittedly in competition with schools like Michigan, which it still trails badly on many key measures)? Because OSU expanded its engineering school in response to student and employer demand? How exactly is this good public policy?
PSU, UMich, and UIUC are the 3 major flagships with the highest in-state tuition (UNH and UVermont are in the top 5 as well, but I won’t focus on them because they affect relatively few people, since few people live in those states): http://www.flbog.edu/about/_doc/budget/tuition/College-Board-Flagship.pdf
Why is that?
Somewhere in this thread, there was a figure that showed that IL increased funding to their public unis by a lot, but it’s certainly not going to the UofI.
If you look here (https://www.pb.uillinois.edu/Documents/budgetbook/FY2016Budgetbook.pdf#page=032), you can see that in real terms, state funding of UofI in 2015 (at less than $650M 2015 dollars) is considerably less than in 2000 (at a little over $1B) or even way back in 1969 (at almost $900M).
PSU in nominal terms got $290M from PA in 2014-2015. That’s down a decent amount from the $364M in 2009-2010 and equal in nominal terms to the $290M from PA in 1997-1998 (though of course, that’s far less in real terms; $1 in 1998 = $1.48 in 2015). In fact, in real terms, PA spent less on PSU in 2015 than they did in 1983.
@bclintonk has already documented the absolute funding cuts in money from MI that UMich has endured in recent decades. He can probably pull out MI GDP numbers as well.
Given these absolute cuts in state funding despite growing economies, how can you expect these schools to not raise tuition?
Now that I’ve pulled out some data, I’ll ask you to pull out some data as well: find me a school where you think the in-state tuition is unreasonable but where the state still gives that school as much money as a percentage of the state budget as decades ago. If you can find such a school, then you have a case. Otherwise, I’d have to group you in among those unreasonable unrealistic folks who whine about paying taxes but want more services from the government.
Because other state budgetary items have a higher priority (such as entitlements).
This is a rough estimate of the Florida state budget in 2016:
Total Spending $157.0 billion
Pensions $8.8 billion
Health Care $32.7 billion
Education $38.2 billion
Welfare $8.3 billion
Protection $15.4 billion
Transport $12.8 billion
and then the reminder…
As pensions, healthcare, and welfare cost go up (faster than the economy is growing), the difference has to be made up from somewhere… For example, since 2009, the % of the Florida state budget for Medicaid has gone up from 26.2% to 31.8% in 2013.
That $4.45B total includes about $2.5B from “Sales and Services of OSU Health System, including OSU Physicians, Inc.”.
If you remove the OSU Health System from the budget, state support becomes much more critical. In comparison, in 2014, OSU expected Tuition and Fees, net of Scholarship Allowance $818 million.
public universities (state schools) should focus on graduating what that particular state needs for it’s growth.
state universities should not be everything for everyone.
and some states that draw a lot of out of state students can benefit from bringing people to their state who may become part of that states economic engine. even if they leave it is still a plus benefit that out of state students attended. and if those out of state students pay double or triple and subsidize in state students all the better.
First problem: What does any particular state need for its growth? Three years ago, this would have meant public universities in North Dakota needed to be graduating as many petroleum engineers as possible. Now, on the other hand…
Second problem: Why should that be the purpose, anyway? No, seriously—you’re making the assumption that economic growth trumps education generally as a public good. There’s an argument (that I disagree with, for what it’s worth) to be made for that, but the argument needs to be made, and not just assumed.
PA’s former Republican Governor actually tried to cut state funding by 50% to public universities in 2010. His cut was reduced to about 20 to 25% on average by the Legislature, but then inflation caused further cuts. He was defeated for re-election. Our new Dem Governor ran on a platform of increased state funding for public schools and colleges. However there is a complete gridlock with the Republican legislature, and the budget is several months late with no end in sight The Gov. got a commitment from the public universities that they would not increase tuition if the Governor’s budget was passed. Once it was clear the Gov’s plan would not be passed, the universities did approve increases averaging 3%. Some also tried a new trick where they are charging 25% more tuition if a student takes 15 credits, because they are basing full time tuition on only 12 credits.
The PA. public universities have not received any state money this year, and have no idea how much money they will eventually receive.
Another $200 Million of the OSU increase was in research funding.This like hospitals can’t be spent on other areas and has different revenue sources–Feds, industry etc.
By the way, I don’t think Ohio State is “in decline.” By many measures, it’s stronger academically than ever—no thanks to the state legislature. This is true in a number of states, where the public flagship has proven sufficiently resilient to weather deep cuts in state support, and actually grow stronger notwithstanding that disadvantage.
But I do think Ohio State is severely resource-challenged. Despite increasing institutional need-based aid from $57.1 million in 2009-10 to $91.7 million in 2014-15—a 60.1% increase over a period in which cumulative inflation was 9.1%—Ohio State still manages to meet only 65% of need, on average. As a result, nearly half (46%) of OSU students end up borrowing, with an average federal debt load of $22,250 by graduation. This compares to 37% who borrow at Michigan, 36% at Wisconsin, 39% at Indiana, and 41% at Illinois.
Academically, though, OSU is getting stronger. In 2014-15, middle 50% ACT scores for incoming OSU freshmen were 27-31, up from 25-30 just 5 years earlier and 23-28 10 years earlier. And 61% of 2014-15 entering freshmen were in the top 10% of their HS class, up from 49% in 2009-10 and 34% in 2004-05, while 94% of 2014-15 freshmen were in the top quarter of their HS class, up from 85% five years earlier and 71% ten years earlier. Ohio State’s entering freshmen stats now compare favorably to Wisconsin’s (26-31 ACT, 52% in top tenth, 90.2% in top quarter) or Illinois’ (26-32 ACT, 59% in top tenth, 90% in top quarter). This wasn’t the case a decade ago.
Also, in OH, it seems like the state is more willing to prop up the flagship than other publics. For instance, from what I hear Ohioans say, it seems like UCincy and Cleveland St. were more highly regarded decades ago than they are now (while back then, OSU was open admissions and not considered a major research university by many).
Student demographics also play a significant role in debt loads. While OSU’s in-state tuition and fee’s is less or about the same as many of it’s peers in the Big10, a significant % are still determined to have need. For example, 50% of OSU’s full time freshman students were determined to have financial need, while it was only 38% at U-M (based on CDS info), which has higher in-state (and OOS) tuition rates.
OSU been a “major” research university since at least the 1950’s. (it joined the AAU in 1950). I’m sure everyone (who’s not an alumni) complains about the Flagship getting more than it’s fair share of funding.
Flagships still get the lion’s share, even if they have been cut more. The problem of fair share is part of what this thread is about, not just a fair share of state funds, but a fair distribution that supports all students in the system. University of Michigan is doing well, as so many point out, but there are 15 public universities in Michigan http://www.michiganbusiness.org/universities-and-colleges-partners/ The condition of SUNY centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Stony Brook) tells us nothing about the other 58 public colleges (including CCs). UC’s don’t tell us about Calstate’s. The majority of public college students don’t go to flagships.
Anecdotally it was quite a shock for me to go to the regional school’s library. I’m at a flagship, and the library has not been well supported since 2008, but it remains adequate. I needed a book fast, and it was at the regional college (the teacher’s college). So I drove 15 miles to their library. I was shocked at how small their holdings were. I could do better using the county library system. Need I tell you that the student population was poorer and browner at the regional than the flagship?
More and more college libraries are moving to electronic subscriptions of books and periodicals and have cut back on their paper versions. Therefore, you cannot immediately tell what is available to students by walking into their library, unless you are looking for older out-of-print books.
